So would he have run?

[drstrange169]

Here's a closer view note the row of arches alongside the railway track.

The originally had cranes that lowered the freight from the trains to the lower levels.

[drstrange169]

Here are old and new photographs of the arches, taken from almost the same spot.

Note the numbering.

Number 1 is closest to Appold Street and ascending to the highest number nearest Eldon Road.

[Fisherman]

I am just as unsure about what you mean about speculation on my behalf as I am about what your picture - taken in the 1980`s - is supposed to tell us about whether there was a wall dividing the covered tank from the yard or not.

Are you saying that it is speculation that the goods depot and the Pickfords yard were situated below the Broad Street goods terminal? And are you promoting a new solution to the "where is door?-problem". If so, Iīm beginning to loose track of them.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The by far most instructive post you have made so far, Dr Strange, will be post 108. Not for the reasons you posted it of course, but nevertheless.

If you (in the lower picture) take a look at the two parallel entrances you did NOT encircle in red, you will note that they belong to a car park.
Now look at the signs - there are three of them.
The first, large, one is situated right over the brick wall, on the facade that is angled ninety degrees to the street. It says NCP Car Park, and has an arrow pointing left.
That sign was there to tell motorists travelling east on Eldon Road that there was a car park coming up soon.
The next two signs are situated where the entrance to the car park is. And that is where I think that the Pickfords goods depot and Pickfords yard were situated in 1888.
Now, there is a blue, modern, sign pointing the motorists to the left, into the building. But there is also a yellow, older, sign, that says NCP car parking and that points the motorists DOWN, to a parking level below street level.

There are TWO openings in the pavement, and we can safely deduct that the motorists will enter the building through one of them and leave it through the other one.
The same will have applied for the carts back in 1888. If it had been an entrance on street level, the carters could have used just the one hole in the wall, since there would be no risk of them running into each other.
But with a depot situated below street level, and with the angle of the ramps leading down and up, two openings into and out of the depot were an absolute necessity to avoid meeting colleagues on their way up and down.

I think this picture of yours tells the whole story. The fact that underground premises are not on the map is neatly illustrated by the vaults and arches you posted latest - they are there, but where are they on the map?

This post of yours also shows the level difference: in the foreground, we can see the street level, and that street level is much further up than the level the parked cars on the yard are on.

This all goes very well to show why Eldon Street was where the carters would have entered and excited Pickfords.

And - once more - even if this had not been the case, it still applies that Lechmere could have used Old Montague Street. And would have, if he was a/the killer and b/not stupid.

Incidentally, your stance that Old Montague Street would have been infested with semi-criminal and vicious people since they were poor kind of swears against what was said about George Yard, where it was stated that the people who lived there were the poorest of the poor but patently honest.

I think you need to find yourself something else than a Booth map to illustrate your point about how dreaded and dangerous the street was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

This all goes very well to show why Eldon Street was where the carters would have entered and excited Pickfords.

Exited, surely Fish?

If the carmen really were excting Pickfords, we'd be looking at a very different picture...

[Fisherman]

Exited, surely Fish?

If the carmen really were excting Pickfords, we'd be looking at a very different picture...

...all that fun and look what happens: you got it wrong too. Excting?

Thereīs karma for you!

Anyhow, yes, exited was the word I was looking for.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Booth’s colour coding, or rather the description that went with it was not based on crime statistics it was based on his assumption that the very poorest people were vicious and semi criminal.
So what I said was correct:
You have no idea whether it was a more dangerous route. Booth’s colour codes were an indication of poverty not crime. Unless you also subscribe to his view that poverty equals crime and danger.

The Old Montague Road took him past a ‘black zone’ on Booth’s map for about 100 yards.

On the issue of plausible routes – all that has ever been said is that it is plausible that Lechmere took the Old Montague Street route as it is the shortest – which it is.
The Skinner Street route is only shorter to the curtilage of the station and to an entrance to the station, not to the good depot.

I have attached a late-ish but pre-war map of Broad Street Station to make sense of the photos.

The big red circle on the aerial view on post 120 is roughly where my red line is.
All the goods station track (the green area) had by then been removed. Cars are parked over this area in the photo. The cars are parked below where the track was
The goods station tack was on a raised platform which was no longer there when the aerial photo was taken.

I have marked Skinner Street in purple and the most sensible route to the Good Station depot from Skinner Street is down the narrow alley marked with a purple arrow.
The Goods Station where the Pickfords Depot is marked in blue and the entrance in orange.

The colour demolition picture in post 122 is aligned facing north. The big building in the background can be seen in the picture in 120.
The picture was taken on the eastern side of the passenger station, roughly where I have marked in pink.
The old black and white picture is on the same alignment. You can see a bit of track on the left which matches and the buildings to the right match
It also makes sense that the arch numbering started with the lowest numbers nearest the Eldon Street entrance to the station.

I find these photos very interesting by the way.

[Sally]

...all that fun and look what happens: you got it wrong too. Excting?

Thereīs karma for you!

Anyhow, yes, exited was the word I was looking for.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ah, if only my typo had been as funny as yours, Fish!

[Sally]

Booth’s colour coding, or rather the description that went with it was not based on crime statistics it was based on his assumption that the very poorest people were vicious and semi criminal.

Oh dear, Ed, that won't do I'm afraid. The Crossmere spin I can let pass, but this?

Charles Booth was of course a renowned social researcher whose work on poverty - including a large body of statistical work which it appears you haven't encountered - was important and influencial, e.g. in government policy on poverty during the early 20th century.

He knew what he was talking about alright. I'm sure that you know as well as I do that his colour coding was based, not on personal assumption, as you disingenuously suggest, but on detailed observation and the intimate local knowledge of the police officers who accompanied his researchers on their research perambulations around London.

In almost every case, the decision to colour was accompanied by a justification. Black was usually black because it was inhabited by criminals - thieves, bullies, prostitutes to name but some.

The places marked as black on Booth's poverty map were notorious - there is plenty of contemporary evidence which supports his conclusions, should you wish to cast aspersions where they really are not due.

Would Crossmere have avoided the more dangerous route? Depends on how bright he was, eh?

[Lechmere]

I'm not casting aspersions on Booth. he was a man of his age. I am stating what was very clearly the case - his classifications were based on income and wealth not crime figures.

[Fisherman]

Ah, if only my typo had been as funny as yours, Fish!

Given the context, Sally, it was actually even funnier methinks!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The places marked as black on Booth's poverty map were notorious - there is plenty of contemporary evidence which supports his conclusions, should you wish to cast aspersions where they really are not due.

Weekly Herald, 17:th of August 1888:

The model dwellings at George Yard Buildings were erected about thirteen years ago, and Princess Alice, but a short time before her death, visited the poor residents there, and extolled the ingenious method of housing them. The structure was erected more as a philanthropic than as a commercial
venture by Mr. Crowther, a gentleman well-known in the district. The occupants are of the poorest class--described by the superindentent's wife as "the poorest of the poor, but very honest."

Are these the notorious, vicious criminals you are speaking of, Sally? Or is the superintendentīs wife just covering for them on a philantropic basis?

Do you think that if the people living in a very poor area were not criminally inclined, Booth would not have cast that area in black? Was criminality an ingredient that must have been there for the area to get coloured black - or was actually poverty what governed the colouring?

Criminality is often more rife in the deprived classes, we all know that. If you have to steal to eat and keep alive, then steal you will. But you know, Sally, not all poor people steal (hard as it may seem to fathom).

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I'm not casting aspersions on Booth. he was a man of his age. I am stating what was very clearly the case - his classifications were based on income and wealth not crime figures.

Rubbish. His classifications were the result of both quantitative and qualititive work. Booth was one of the founding fathers of social research - to imply that he constructed a poverty map of the capital based only on 'income and wealth' is nonsense and merely demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

Have you actually read any of Booth's work, or is he just another casualty of your relentless drive to promote your suspect?

[MrBarnett]

For what it's worth, here is the great man's assessment of Mayfields Buildings in St. Geo in the East:

'Uncoloured on the map, but should be black. The worst place in the subdivision. Not one male in the street above school age that has not been convicted. Thieves - rough cockney Irish. Broken dirty windows, ? women. Doors open, black shiny doorposts. 3 story houses. Has been the ruin of Princes square, else a quiet country like place.'

Seems more of a moral classification than an economic one.

MrB

[Sally]

For what it's worth, here is the great man's assessment of Mayfields Buildings in St. Geo in the East:

'Uncoloured on the map, but should be black. The worst place in the subdivision. Not one male in the street above school age that has not been convicted. Thieves - rough cockney Irish. Broken dirty windows, ? women. Doors open, black shiny doorposts. 3 story houses. Has been the ruin of Princes square, else a quiet country like place.'

Seems more of a moral classification than an economic one.

MrB

Thanks for posting that Mr.B,

Yes: 'thieves, Prost[itutes] rough cockney Irish. Broken dirty windows, bare headed women.'

Certianly more of a moral classification than an economic one - and quite typical. Booth took into account a wide range of social factors when constructing the poverty maps of London, both quantitative [e.g.statistics taken and compiled from census data] and qualitative [e.g. local knowledge]